From Physics World: APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change
The American Physical Society (APS) has “overwhelmingly rejected” a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November 2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls “a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research” and took soundings from its members. “We recommended not accepting the proposal,” Kleppner told physicsworld.com. “The [APS] council almost unanimously decided to go with that.”
Different positions
The official APS position on climate change says that “emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate” and adds that there is “incontrovertible” evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. “If no mitigating actions are taken,” it says, “significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.”
However, the petition’s signatories claim that “measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20–21st century changes [in climate] are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today”. They say that various natural processes, such as ocean cycles and solar variability, could account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries.
“Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate,” the petition concludes. It also points to “extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals”.
Next steps
Although the APS council turned down the request, it has, however, agreed to one proposal from Kleppner’s committee: that the society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) should “examine the statement for improvements in clarity and tone”. Princeton University atomic physicist Will Happer, who was one of those leading the proposal for change, sees that fact as a form of vindication. “They basically sent both statements back to their committee on public affairs and asked them to reconsider,” says Happer. “I think it’s a big victory for us. Many of [the people who signed the petition] took quite a bit of risk in signing this statement.”
However, the APS firmly refutes Happer’s reading. “The council has, in effect, said we reject outright the replacement of our statement,” points out APS spokesperson Tawanda Johnson. “We are certainly not rejecting the 2007 statement. It’s still on our website. POPA reviews statements every five years; it would have come up for review anyway.”
Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS’s 47,000 members. “This is certainly not a majority opinion,” he says. “Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence.”
About the author
Peter Gwynne is Physics World‘s North America correspondent
The poll of the museum is interesting, since I would suppose it would be science educated people taking part.
# 4504 counted in so far
# 7253 counted out
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
The ratio is diminishing, but now is the time for school kids to walk through the exhibit and one knows what they would vote. They have to rush up school visits but they cannot eliminate the counted out entries anyway.
I expect an anonymous poll of the APS would also have a similar outcome, with no school children.
Dr A Burns (15:46:41) :
” … and adds that there is “incontrovertible” evidence that global warming is occurring.”
‘ incontrovertible: not controvertible; not open to question or dispute; indisputable: absolute and incontrovertible truth. ‘
Exactly what is the “incontrovertible” evidence ?
Within Platonic Mathematics we can have incontrovertible truth – but incontrovertible truth within Physics? No! Proof: When was the last time you saw error bars used in a mathematical proof? (not to be confused with intervals or the use of interval arithmetic)
On another topic: We are seeing the results of a newer generation of scientists who were raised with computers rather than slide rules. A lifetime of slide rule skills in juggling orders of magnitude imparted a sixth sense for judging what might be possible and what might not be possible. When I first heard about global warming back in the mid 1990s, I accepted those trends that I examined as natural phenomena – but when I heard some $cientists trying to qualify global warming with the term “anthroprogenic,” my years of scientific modeling with equations, sliderules, and computer programming immediately rendered a skeptical reaction. Yes, it was an intuitive, almost faith-based reaction – faith in the immense order of magnitudes that natural phenomena exerts over us puny – but ever so arrogant humans.
COME TO POPA:
Alright. If people here really would like to see a change in the APS statement – write an email addressed to the POPA Steering Committee members. These are the people charged with “reviewing” their current hand wringing statement on global warming.
The Steering Committee consists of:
Chairperson, the Chairperson-Elect, the Vice-Chairperson, the Vice-President, the Chair of the Physics Policy Committee, and at least two additional members selected from among and by the members of POPA (unidentified at this time.)
Their email addresses are here:
http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/popa/index.cfm
Will Laffer and 160 petitioner scientists embarrass the APS by demanding they admit they were wrong and replace their over-heated statement on AGW. That invokes too much angst for erudite Committee members. But perhaps an amended statement that moves the APS toward a face-saving exit will be better received.
Write em and tell them you expect more from so lofty an organization. Cite the most recent science and language that tempers the catastrophizing of the present statement. At the very least it will be an exercise in grass roots democracy.
“Freedom means to say two plus two is four without consequences.”
So this is the change we can believe in. Disgusting.
Science should not be result of compromise or negotiations, it should be based on facts. It is beneficial to have a clear dividing line between AGW and doubters. AGWs have jumped on the bandwagon, without definitive scientific proof , while doubters have not managed to come up with a convincing knockout theory. Any wishy-washy consensus between two could be only an obstacle to true progress, currently lacking.
Science calls for a battle royal not a ceasefire.
Joel, you can argue till you are blue in the face but this whole debate about the APS should be reduced to one irrefutable principle:
A professional society has no place in expressing an opinion on behalf of its members.
I you disagree (although I proclaim it as an “irrefutable principle”) let me hear your arguments.
I think the petitioners were barking up the wrong tree. They would have been on stronger ground if they had argued that the APS hierarchy had no business promulgating a statement on anthropogenic global warming at all, since they clearly haven’t canvassed the views of their membership.
Joel Shore (20:09:10) :
So, to summarize, is water vapor a greenhouse gas? In the radiative sense, yes. Are emissions of water vapor a concern for the affects on the climate system? No, at least not at anything close to their current emissions.
Ahhhh — so water vapor is a more “potent” greenhouse gas than Cee-Owe-Two and the miniscule amount that we emit in proportion to the natural occurrence is of *no* consequence, but the miniscule amount of the “less-potent” Cee-Owe-Two we emit in proportion to the natural occurrence is of *dire* consequence.
Got it.
Joel Shore: Hmmm…You might want to check out the numbers on what Spencer and Lindzen have received in government funding. Spencer (and Christy too?) even was an employee of NASA for heaven’ sake!
Spencer left NASA precisely because he could no longer work under their AGW-supportive dissidents-quashing POV. And “for heaven’ sake”, what kind of comparison is this, a tiny handful of skeptical scientists who still manage to get Government funding as opposed to a huge majority of warmists? Perhaps they could not get away with dismissing Lindzen. But they did get away with dismissing Dr Deming. And I suspect a lot more.
Gene Nemetz (21:02:18) : One thing I do see is longer, colder winters. So does everyone else.
_Jim (21:27:33) : Smokey originally wrote: Miss Cherry hand-picked her six cronies to make up a rubber stamp committee, exactly as Lindzen describes… Joel Shore (18:55:37) writes : The membership of the ad hoc committee is not anonymous to APS members… Well Joel, you didn’t really address the ‘hand-picked six cronies’ part, instead you ever-so-slyly move off in a slightly different direction…
savethesharks (21:35:36) : Joel Shore: ””….is that they [Skeptics] see the mainstream scientists as being so political because they simply cannot imagine handling science in an objective or dispassionate way.”” Wow. Isn’t THAT the ole’ “scientific” big-ass POT calling the kettle black…
DaveE (21:39:11) : I see Joel is playing the big bad oil, forced to do the right thing card. I have news for you Joel. Big bad oil couldn’t give a rats a$$ which way the science goes, they always profit from it…
Richard (21:12:43) : (paraphrasing) Joel Shore is a very bad case of AGW extremism… There are [three] concepts to grapple with (1) climate change is natural (2) warmer temperatures are on balance beneficial (3) CO2 is NOT a pollutant (but basic food for plants.)
Knowing how extensively AGW has been holed below the water-line, and how well that is exposed here to all who look with an open mind, I’m intrigued as to why Joel Shore keeps on here. Such a closed mind in a trained scientist horrifies me. But it also keeps reminding me that there are many others like Joel. However, I now doubt Joel’s belief that the APS membership would freely vote to support AGW any longer, seeing that…
anna v (22:22:38) : The poll of the [science] museum is interesting, since I would suppose it would be science educated people taking part.
# 4504 counted in so far
# 7253 counted out
But I notice… We’ve seen several such comparison of numbers from this poll, and the total is NOT GROWING AFAIK. Have the organizers got a well-trained dog to eat the homework?
Joel Shore
The original owners and majority shareholders of Exxon-Mobil have a long and easily researched history of financing “AGW” science via their foundations. That way believers like yourself can make ridiculously ill-informed statements about the “badies” having “long fought against the science” (that they funded). Oh well,
I’m sure it matters little to your convictions, the truth that is.
As I said “A professional society has no place in expressing an opinion on behalf of its members.” This also applies for scientific Journals or semi- scientific magazines like New Scientist or Scientific American or “independent” media like BBC, on behalf/over the head of their shareholders, editors or subscribers. Because whenever an organization takes sides in a scientific dispute or controversy unbiased reporting is unlikely to be upheld.
Errata: and apologies to Dr. Will Happer – the award winning Professor of Physics at Princeton and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993. Dr. Happer has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
For a little insight into how differently actual APS members approach the global warming issue – take a look at the Co-Editor of the New England Section’s personal web site:
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/LGOULD/NES%20APS%20Spring%202008%20Newsletter_On%20AGWA%20Claims.pdf
I have noticed a barrage of tv ads from Exxon Mobil over the last several weeks. In one of these ads they show a scientist talking about energy extraction from algae. In another there is a scientist explaining how they can drill to great depths to find gas. This tells me they are now maneuvering themselves to get a slice of whatever subsidies become available. And why not? They are just chasing the money.
However, one thing I have never seeen, is them, or any other oil company placing tv ads to try and suggest that global warming isn’t man made. The suggestion that oil companies previously campaigned against AGW, seems without evidence.
Ladies and gentlemen, science has left the building!
In its place, politics is to play the starring role!
Vincent,
“The suggestion that oil companies previously campaigned against AGW, seems without evidence.”
You didn’t seem to look very hard. XOM rarely used its name directly for those purposes, but they fund all sorts of things. Just start with the API and CEI.
Lucy Skywalker: “Have the organizers got a well-trained dog to eat the homework?”
I suspect it is the SAME randy, gregarious, slobbering English Labrador Retriever roaming around over there who probably devoured the Briffa dataset.
My Lab one time ate some of my curtains, one time part of the Christmas tree and some of the gifts under it. They’ll eat anything. 😉
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Lucy Skywalker: “Knowing how extensively AGW has been holed below the water-line, and how well that is exposed here to all who look with an open mind, I’m intrigued as to why Joel Shore keeps on here. Such a closed mind in a trained scientist horrifies me. But it also keeps reminding me that there are many others like Joel.”
It seems to be a psychological phenomenon like “mass delusion” or “collective cognitive dissonance.”
Very interesting phenomena that occur in our species from time to time (and that gets even the smartest of us).
As we are on the cusp of learning more how organisms swarm and school and act as “super-organisms”, the current quasi-religious AGW movement will certainly be a case-study.
Group-think (a.k.a. “consensus”) has contributed to some tragic, tragic chapters in human history no doubt. One only has to think back about 65 years on the Continent.
And Group-Think destroys…..DESTROYS the Scientific Method.
Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney, who co-authored the book “Unscientific America” and with whose premises I largely agree, create a BIG divergence, however, when they repeatedly, throughout the book, label the Skeptics as “Global Warming Deniers” and “Climate Change Deniers”.
Now Sheril, with a PHD at Duke, seems like a nice, reasonable scientist when when she was interviewed on NPR recently.
She lost me, however, when she pointed out [and down her nose, I might add], about the spuriousness of blogs to get scientific information, citing, that the best blog of the year was, “WattsUpWithThat”……a [her words] “Climate Change Denialist Blog.”
Of course, the NPR host did not challenge that loaded description, into question.
And just like NPR’s silence, Dr. Kirshenbaum has not responded to many salient questions and emails I have personally sent her.
THAT is their technique: If they can’t really address the questions [often because they don’t have the data to support it], then they just avoid altogether.
Sort of reminds me how Christopher Monckton keeps trotting around the globe challenging Al Gore for a debate….and Al Gore runs…like the coward he is.
Contrary to Al Gore, I will give Joel Shore credit for not fleeing when the weather gets rough and for taking the heat in the kitchen.
…but he LOSES credibility with many of us when he resorts to the “establishment” “party-line” taking up for the ICC, APS, ACS, etc.
Bottom line: “Consensus” +” Politics” = “Groupthink”
Groupthink is ruining the SM today, and we are in an AS embarrassing a chapter in science history, as the chapter that existed during the Spanish Inquisition.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
anna v (22:22:38) :
Lucy Skywalker (01:59:43)
” The poll of the [science] museum is interesting, since I would suppose it would be science educated people taking part.
# 4504 counted in so far
# 7253 counted out
But I notice… We’ve seen several such comparison of numbers from this poll, and the total is NOT GROWING AFAIK. Have the organizers got a well-trained dog to eat the homework?”
Ric Werme has been keeping track of the poll at http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/proveit.html
You will note that there have been one or two interesting bits of mannipulation (sic) of the poll results.
On the APS matter, why do not some of the 160 put themselves up for election in a constitutional way? Or does the APS not do democracy?
Correction “ICC” is meant to be “IPCC.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Unparse-able on account of all italics … sorry, Chris, this style doesn’t cut it …
.
.
.
Sorry, Chris, didn’t see this earlier post …
I’m seeing your entire posts as italicized (in italics).
Do others see the same thing? (Maybe my browser is having issues!!)
.
.
Joel Shore (20:29:15) :
Earlier I commented:
“paullm says:
Months ago WUWT has also presented how exorbitant amounts of Gov. money and support has been devoted to AGW Alarmists for many years while “Skeptics” have received nothing.”
While I stated an all to nothing funding discrepancy exits I should have accurately described it as “virtually” nothing (The handful of outstanding researchers who you have countered with notwithstanding.). Additionally, I did mention “money and support” which also includes NEA, UN and other Gov. agency and propaganda efforts, not only research.
SPPI (posted in WUWT, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/climate-science-follow-the-money/) presented the report summarizing the increased Gov. funding ($79 billion since 1989) on climate related matters that opened doors to special interests. It points out, also, that since January hundreds of billions (ARRA) now have been directed to “clean energy investments”. The investment and stakes are all but unyielding to climate objectivity both here and worldwide (UN, IPCC, Copenhagen Treaty).
As the EPA’s refusal to openly review and debate the IPCC “research” that it relies upon for their CO2 “pollution” finding demonstrates taxpayers funding is used in every way to deprive any AGW non-supportive research or debate from gaining anything close to equal consideration in the public.
Joel Shore (20:29:15) :
“Hmmm…You might want to check out the numbers on what Spencer and Lindzen have received in government funding. Spencer (and Christy too?) even was an employee of NASA for heaven’ sake! And, scientists are funded to study science. They are not classified into categories first. And, earth-observing satellite systems are even less likely to be classified as “alarmists” or “skeptics”. (Sort of reminds me of the joke on the Daily Show a few years ago that “the facts have an anti-Bush bias”.)”
Joel, you do come across as amazingly “innocent” regarding politics and anything, in this case science. Recently, the ARGO Project may have succumbed to essentially data collection equipment (as well as data itself) manipulation by having undesired results discarded. This joins other NOAA, etc. efforts to seemingly bias results through satellite and land surfacestation data and/or equipment, data, interpretation and presentation. While not directly classifying efforts as “alarmist” or “skeptic” this is, in effect, the (perhaps?) result – especially regarding Gov. usage of Media.
I’ll take your word for anything about the Daily Show but do you really question that how and what “facts” are presented can insert (in your example anti-Bush) bias? Try: out-of-context, spin, slant, collection error, interpretation, ad infinitum.
Others here have presented many other examples of bias and methods of addressing them. Joel, I think you could make better use of you time and suggest to your APS officials that they attempt to make a more thorough effort at respectably debating this all important matter. They have an obligation to do that considering that they seemingly devote a majority of their efforts to an endeavor fundamentally dedicated to such bias examination and elimination. Alright, so there is always the battle and challenge with (and of) money and power – the glory will forever sway between those and objective inquiry.
The Games will go on. While the credibility of Science is at stake, it’s the expense that is becoming overwhelming.
savethesharks says:
I think I have explained before why I think “skeptics” is a misnomer when applied to many of the people who call themselves “AGW skeptics”. People like Smokey are amongst the least skeptical people who I have ever interacted with in terms of believing anything that supports their preconceptions.
I think I have probably spent more time reading and trying to understand arguments from the “AGW skeptics” side than almost anyone here has spent in trying to understand the science discussed in the IPCC report and such.
It was not really a tangential point, as Smokey had referred to them as an “anonymous ad-hoc committee” (although admittedly that was not the part of what he said that I quoted, which may be your reason for confusion).
But, I also did address this “cronies” notion by noting that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this “cronies” charge and that in fact one of the six members was actually a signer of the Oregon Petition and of a letter to President Bush in 2002 from the Heritage Foundation. To my knowledge, none of the other members of the committee had engaged in any such activism in the other direction. But I’ll add something perhaps even more to the point, which is that the Letter to Nature by Fred Singer, Will Happer, Larry Gould, Roger Cohen, and Robert H. Austin says this ( http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Nature_Letter.html ):
It would be a little hard to explain how “a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists” becomes a “a rubber stamp committee” of “handpicked…cronies” just because they reach a decision that you don’t like.
KJ says:
Vincent says:
oakgeo says:
It is not some great secret that an organization called the Global Climate Coalition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition ) existed until it fell apart around 2000.
It is also no secret that ExxonMobil had in the past (and perhaps still continues in some cases) to fund think-tanks that question the science and lobby against action on climate change such as CEI, Heritage Foundation, National Center for Policy Analysis, the Heartland Institute, and the George C Marshall Institute (see, e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding , http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-acknowledges-climate-change
What I agreed with is that an oil company would tend to view restrictions as more or less draconian.